A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that immigrants cannot challenge the government’s denial of inadmissibility waivers in district court, a ruling that deals a significant blow to U visa applicants seeking judicial oversight of immigration decisions.
In a published opinion, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Sosimo Vera Chairez, a Mexican citizen who sued after the government denied his request for a waiver and his subsequent U visa application.
The court held that federal judges lack the jurisdiction to review these decisions because Congress specifically assigned that power to the “sole discretion” of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Chairez, who has lived in the U.S. for years, applied for a U visa—a program designed for victims of crimes who assist law enforcement. Because Chairez had previously entered the U.S. without permission, he was technically “inadmissible” and required a waiver to move forward. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied that waiver, effectively killing his chance at the visa.
Chairez sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the denial was unlawful and that the government was biased against him. However, the court ruled that the law’s use of the word “may” regarding waivers signals a “matter of grace,” not a legal right that a judge can enforce.
The ruling officially retired an older legal standard that previously allowed some oversight if a statute provided “judicially manageable” guidelines. The panel noted that a 2024 Supreme Court decision, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, effectively overruled previous Ninth Circuit methodology.
“When Congress signals that it is merely providing guidance to the agency on its exercise of discretion—as opposed to providing prerequisites—the discretionary judgment call as a whole falls within the jurisdiction-stripping provision,” the court stated.
The judges also rejected Chairez’s claim that this leaves him with no way to defend his rights. The panel clarified that while he cannot sue in district court now, he could potentially raise these issues later if he is placed in removal proceedings.
While the decision was unanimous in its result, Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea issued a separate concurrence highlighting what he called an “irreconcilable” split within the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Bea argued that two different cases from the same court now give conflicting instructions on whether constitutional challenges can ever be heard in district court. He called for a larger “en banc” panel of judges to resolve the confusion, noting that the current uncertainty creates “unnecessary delays” and expense for the legal system.
The ruling means that for now, U visa applicants in Western states who are denied waivers by USCIS have no immediate path to challenge those choices in a traditional courtroom.
READ: “Importing People Who Hate Us”: Rep. Chip Roy Explodes Over Texas Mass Shooter’s Immigration History
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
